ArticleHeliyon2019
Perceptions on radioprotective garment usage and underlying reasons for non-adherence among medical radiation workers from public hospitals in a middle-income Asian setting: A qualitative exploration.
Article in Heliyon, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Protective Equipment and Personal Monitoring in Fluoroscopy-Guided Procedures: A Case Study in Portugal.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development of a Process Technology to Improve the Internal Particle Density and Enhance the Performance of Medical Radiation Shielding Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of lead aprons among dental practitioners and specialists.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research · 2022Article
- Assessment of Health Professionals' Attitudes on Radiation Protection Measures.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadioprotective garments protect medical radiation workers from exposure to radiation at workplace. However, previous studies have found poor adherence to the use of radioprotective garments.
objectivesWe explored the perceptions and practices related to the use of radioprotective garments among medical radiation workers in public hospitals, and sought to understand the reasons for non-adherence. DESIGN AND
settingA qualitative approach was applied by conducting face-to-face in-depth interviews with 18 medical radiation workers from three university hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide.
resultsFive themes emerged with respect to perceptions on the use of radioprotective garments: (i) the dilemmas in practising radiation protection, (ii) indication of workers' credibility, (iii) physical appearance of radioprotective garments, (iv) practicality of radioprotective garment use, and (v) impact on workflow. Actual lack of radioprotective garment use was attributed to inadequate number of thyroid shield and other garments, radioprotective garments' unsightly appearance including being dirty and defective, impracticality of using radioprotective garments for some nuclear medicine procedures, disruption of workflow because of workers' limited movements, attitudes of workers, and organisational influences.
conclusionMedical radiation workers demonstrated a definitive practice of using radioprotective aprons, but often neglected to use thyroid shields and other garments. Availability and hygiene are reported as the core issues, while unclear guidelines on practical use of radioprotective garments appear to lead to confusion among medical radiation workers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study of its kind from a middle-income Asian setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.